@BobRoss@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @natsock@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz p@freespeechextremist.com The problem is not that distinctions can't exist or can't matter; the problem is your distinctions barely exist and don't matter. Pointless distinctions are everywhere. A taco *may* be a sandwich. This is funny. People invest a lot of effort into strict definitions of inconsequential things: "A wine cooler is *not* beer! *This* is beer!"; "An ice cream sandwich is not *really* a sandwich." This doesn't matter much. People have their weird fixations and all is right in the world. Then there are crazy people, like occultists, who obsess over and stretch definitions beyond usability. Their meanings are so abstract they detach from reality. "You have to use your will power to fuel your magick power to summon a succubus for your psychonaut work." The only evidence is large swatches of internal consistency. Ultimately, every swatch is circular or baseless, but there's enough details to get lost in it. A moron or victim can meander in circles without realizing anything is wrong. These details are ideological mazes. You are also trapped in a maze, because you put undue emphasis on things that don't matter and aren't well defined. You talk in circles. The group distinctions you care about only matter to you. People who aren't explicitly nationalists do not identify with you. Social classes and subcultures have greater cohesion than national identities. A core problem right now is that politicians have more in common with each other than their constituents. The rich have more in common with each other than their countrymen. Nerds have more in common with each other than their neighbors or ethnic group. "The culture begins to fragment back into pieces. The disconnect can be profound; an American anime geek has more in common with a Japanese anime geek (who is of a different ethnicity, a different culture, a different religion, a different language…) than he does with an American involved in the evangelical Christian subculture." -Gwern, https://www.gwern.net/The-Melancholy-of-Subculture-Society Seeing national cohesion fracture, you say "we need to create a strong national identity so that people will prioritize their countrymen over their own insider groups or foreign interests", but this is not the solution. Unsurprisingly, few people are nationalists. Individuals are not willing to sacrifice self interest for national interest. A robust society must channel individual interests into group interests. Nationalism is not compelling. It asks for too much and gives too little. It is just another "spook" (Max Stirner). Nationalist society does not solve the problems it's drummed up in response to, is irrelevant to the people it claims to represent, and is even more fragile to self interest than the society it hopes to remake.

@Arty24@poa.st @BobRoss@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @natsock@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @p@freespeechextremist.com Sort of. The argument *does* reduce to something else, but it doesn't have to be completely subjective and arbitrary. I've been arguing that the distinctions nationalists emphasize shouldn't be emphasized. My points include: the group distinctions nationalists use are *too* arbitrary to be meaningful; nationalism is too fragile. For my first point, I gave several arguments for why hard friend-group distinctions are useless. For every friend-enemy distinction: the friend and enemy group agree on too much to be opposites; their names have nothing to do with what they believe; each group's shared beliefs are unrelated; the friend and enemy groups slowly exchange opinions over time; the friend and enemy groups slowly exchange demographics over time. Every friend-enemy distinction is blurry and in flux. At the time, I was thinking more of political parties than different national groups, but I think the same arguments apply. My second point, was that nationalism is fragile. The goal of any ideological system for building a society is to build a stable system people can interact with each other within. The system must be stable, otherwise it will cease to exist. The system must allow individuals to interact, otherwise it isn't a society. I claimed that nationalism failed because it relies on homogeneous values despite different genetics (even within a national group genes vary) and different upbringings within the society. Different lives lead to different values. These differences require a society that can handle differences. A society that relies on a homogeneous population is not robust enough to handle real people with conflicting values. I also claimed that nationalism fails to accommodate self interest. A robust society has to position itself so that the self interest aligns with social interest. Nationalism is not aligned with self interest and is not compelling enough for people to follow it at the expense of their own desires. Nationalism is worse at handling corruption then what it hopes to replace.

@petit@social.ufeff.club @natsock@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @p@freespeechextremist.com If workers can't sell their labor across borders, why tf do we have so many migrant workers, and migrants generally? You're talking nonsense. I mean you're not totally wrong that globohomo corps and governments tactically use borders to control wages and production, but they don't actual care about the nation or nationalism. They're able to do the tactical nationalism because nationalist sentiments exist. If as few people as you claim held nationalist views, explicitly or implicitly, there would be no way to use it against us. Hell, ww2 was a war of globalists against nationalists, and the globalists had to dip hard-core into the well of nationalism and totally subvert it to make the war happen. No one gave a shit otherwise til gay ops were used to make people think their nation was under attack and in danger. Now you keep going back to this argument that groups change over time. So what? Your friend group or race or class changing over time doesn't mean friends, race, and class don't exist. Nationalism is about history and race, you can't really separate the two, and neither are arbitrary or accidental. Yes, a nation has a history, makes history. How is that an argument against its existence? You also keep saying that we need something more secure than race or nation. Like what? You can't seriously mean subculture or class like you brought up earlier. Class almost makes sense in that the whole hlvm dynamic (or others) is always at play, but individuals move between classes and castes, and all your arguments up til now have been based on individuals. And race and class are quite interlinked in diverse societies. In America, we have jews and some butt goys at the top, whites in the middle, with non-Whites and fags and other degenerates as lumpen. High and low team up to crush the middle. Some amount of racial diversity among all classes doesn't change the fact its a primarily racial struggle. And forget about subculture, those are totally just surface level distinctions. It's right in the name, they are subordinate to an actual culture. So what? Ideology is gay, you don't want to do it on nation, so what's the centralizing force in your worldview here? What distinction has meaning in your eyes?

@BobRoss@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @natsock@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @p@freespeechextremist.com > If workers can't sell their labor across borders, why tf do we have so many migrant workers, and migrants generally? The key to this is that borders are legal constructs. The employment of migrant workers has more in common with the employment of outsourced labor than local employment. Notice that migrants do work that *cannot* be outsourced, like farming or construction. This is not by accident. Although the workers are geographically on a different side of the border, they are legally trapped outside. The borders between nations are more than just lines on a map. They are legal systems. The workers can work, but deportation is always a risk. This is similar to, but worse than, having a work visa. Selectively closing and opening parts of the border is extremely lucrative. This is why people are taught a controversy about "entering the country" and "staying in their own country". The real issue is what happens to people who have crossed over? If employers of migrants were prosecuted, lobbyists would not push so hard to let migrants in. Construction companies and agribusiness would be less "progressive". > Nationalism is about history and race, you can't really separate the two, and neither are arbitrary or accidental. Yes, a nation has a history, makes history. How is that an argument against its existence? The issue is that when we look to history we see national cohesion and racial cohesion come and go. The new strains are not exclusively specializations of older strains. The small strains are not exclusively subsets of large strains. Instead, large groups are regularly synthesized from small groups with no common heritage. When the French nation was formed, most "frenchmen" didn't speak french. This is hardly a story of historical Gaulic exceptionalism. There's too much inbreeding between national groups to rely on their distinctness for political means. National groups are too temporal to rely on. They come and go. It's pointless to build a life in support of a national group that you wouldn't recognize in 200 years, assuming it even still exists as anything more that an influence to other national groups. > And forget about subculture, those are totally just surface level distinctions. It's right in the name, they are subordinate to an actual culture. The word "subculture" is a misnomer. Subcultures span national cultures. There are examples of this everywhere. It's more accurate to say "culture" rather than "subculture", but "subculture" implies small or niche. Focusing on the literal meaning misses the point. > So what? Ideology is gay, you don't want to do it on nation, so what's the centralizing force in your worldview here? What distinction has meaning in your eyes? But why is nation independent ideology bad? Ideology is timeless. People were talking about democracy millenia ago and they'll be talking about democracy millenia into the future. There's value in living in the now and trying to improve current problems as they come, but ideology provides a way to see problems and solutions in a wider context. In the face of constant change, the only things that will survive history are those broad and general enough to exist throughout history. Even if nationalism exists for all time (It could.), no specific nation will. And if that's the case, why bother with nationalism?

@petit@social.ufeff.club @natsock@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @p@freespeechextremist.com I still don't see how you can argue outsourcing and migrant labor are a result of "nationalism". They're both globalist attacks on the nation. Stop gap measures on the way to a more global leveling of wages and overall globohomogenization of markets and production. A nation isn't just a legal construct, its a people. Yes, our people had a legal construct that, when used with proper discretion, privileged us over foreigners. The fine print of that construct hasn't changed much, but there's no will to use it for the benefit of Americans any more, it's used to attack us for corporate and kike gain. The legalese is irrelevant, it's the discretion that matters. I'm all for prison or capital punishment for people who promote or use these types of attacks against us tho. The immigrants and foreign workers wouldn't be an issue without them, we just stop or limit using them, simple as. Sure some subcultures span different nations, but so what? Being a weeb or goth or tranny or whatever is just a facade. It's not an actual identity. It has no meaning. You can't seriously think those identity are more "real" than a racial, national or ethnic identity. And I really don't get how you think a ideology is more timeless than a nation. Ideology changes over time just as much as anything else you've talked about here, it's just as much a product of history. Maybe more volatile because it's been abstracted and externalised, there's nothing to hold it down. It's how you get from the early liberalism as an honest critique of monarchical excess to tranny demons doing drag queen story hour. Hume and Locke and the rest would be appalled by modern liberalism. Ideology changing over time doesn't mean it's not real or doesn't hold power, but it's absurd to say it's timeless.

@BobRoss@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @natsock@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @p@freespeechextremist.com >I still don't see how you can argue outsourcing and migrant labor are a result of "nationalism". They're both globalist attacks on the nation. They aren't caused by nationalism. They are made possible by nationalism. I guess this falls under the idea of "capitalist realism" consuming everything. Capitalism consumed nationalism and produced unprotected migrant workers. >The fine print of that construct hasn't changed much, but there's no will to use it for the benefit of Americans any more, it's used to attack us for corporate and kike gain. Legal systems are exploited by corporations, but they are simultaneously exploited by activists and citizens. I think this is a better situation than no legal system and constant violence. I think current society is better suited to fighting corruption than a nationalistic society because current society builds on personal interest rather than wishing it away. >I'm all for prison or capital punishment for people who promote or use these types of attacks against us tho. The immigrants and foreign workers wouldn't be an issue without them, we just stop or limit using them, simple as. Yes, but stopping migrant employers directly is a lot more palatable, feasible, and expedient than converting society to nationalism. >Sure some subcultures span different nations, but so what? Being a weeb or goth or tranny or whatever is just a facade. It's not an actual identity. It has no meaning. You can't seriously think those identity are more "real" than a racial, national or ethnic identity. Those are identities with meaning, but even if they weren't, there are better examples. A profession is an extremely strong example. If you're a fisherman in the industrialized world, you have more common with a fisherman in some other part of the industrialized world than you do with some random person in your own city. People waffle about whether your job is your life or not, but it's hard to spend 8+ hours a day doing something for most of your life without starting to identify with it. Religion is another example. People across the world know the same stories, follow the same rituals, and say the same prayers. Language is another. Anglophones have an identity distinct from francophones. (Except when they overlap.) Academia is a huge example. A professor has more in common with other professors than the facility staff. >And I really don't get how you think a ideology is more timeless than a nation. But it very clearly is. Nationalism has outlived every nation that took to it. Ideology generalizes behind nations and so it can be referenced, referred to, and implemented throughout history. And it has been. A striking property is that an ideology can be reinvented in isolation without reference to an existing example of it. Slaves don't need to be educated to crave freedom. >Maybe more volatile because it's been abstracted and externalised, there's nothing to hold it down. It's how you get from the early liberalism as an honest critique of monarchical excess to tranny demons doing drag queen story hour. Hume and Locke and the rest would be appalled by modern liberalism. This isn't even wrong. Hume and Locke would probably be disgusted, but what does that have to do with liberalism, as they defined it, changing? Yeah, the word "liberal" has changed but people still pull out the term "classical liberal" to refer to their stuff. How have the ideologies they professed changed? >Ideology changing over time doesn't mean it's not real or doesn't hold power, but it's absurd to say it's timeless. You haven't given me an example of how ideology has changed. I can poke fun at some German boasting about the Holy Roman Empire, but what do you have for me? Did freedom of speech stop being free? It means the same thing whether you follow it or not. Ideology is about ideals, these exist independent of the people around them.

@BobRoss@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz >So a nation manifesting itself in different ways thru time doesn't invalidate nationalist ideals? Or what are you trying to say? The difference is that nationalists are not loyal to nationalism; nationalists are only ever loyal to a specific manifestation of nationalism. Germans don't care about Spaniards. Nationalism may exist after a nation state ends, but that's not reassuring to nationalists. If a German nation state falls, the existence of a Spanish nation state is not reassuring to what were once Germans. Knowing this, why follow nationalism? One reason to care is that nationalism is good for the nation group, but this is not true. Chinese nationalism sucks for the Chinese. Nation states prioritize the self-preservation of the state over the interests of individual interests. This is why they're unstable. Members of the nation group suffer. Another reason to care is that nation groups transcend personal interests and relationships and represent something greater than the individual. However, nation groups are ill defined, arbitrary, and temporary. Tribalism for its own sake is hollow. When people die for an ideal, they have a reasonable expectation that ideal will live forever. When people die for family, they are trading their well being for an individual they love. When people die for their concious, it gives them internal peace. Nationalism relies on devotion to an arbitrary group of strangers. Nationalists suffer to support an organization that prioritizes its self preservation over the well being of its members, that organization will eventually die anyway, and that organization doesn't stand for anything except itself. >The problem is thinking these values, or any set of values, are universal. And communisms problems have more to do with the egalitarian and individualistic foundation that they try to build the communal aspects on top of. Of course it's doomed to fail. If the problem with communism is egalitarian and individualistic foundations rather than the communal aspects, then why is modern liberal society built on egalitarian and individualistic foundations without communal foundations so resilient? It's because the communal aspects are the issue. Egalitarianism and individualistic foundations allow strangers to work together. There's no hoping everyone acts like a big homogeneous family.